I want to call readers to the work of a friend I met over the past year or so: Kathy Heshelow, an extremely talented and amiable person. Lots of interesting content at Energy-Blog.us.
In fact, I’ve asked her to write a number of the articles of The Vector. And checking out her site just now myself, I’ve realized that she helped to promote my book! Thanks, Kathy. Very kind of you.
I go on occasional rants about the lunacy of the EPA’s rating electric cars (pure EVs that use no gas, e.g., the Nissan LEAF) on their gas mileage. Apparently, John Voelcker of GreenCarReports.com agrees:
Idiocy…. So it’s come down to this, has it? The U.S. car-buying public is apparently so stupid that the Environmental Protection Agency has to rate the efficiency of an all-electric car that burns no gasoline in … miles per gallon.
I feel your pain, John. But the truth is that U.S. car-buyers actually are not that stupid. Realize that we’re still being instructed on how to buckle our seatbelts on airplanes (which work the same way as those in every car that’s been built for sale in the US for the last 50 years). The take-away: bureaucracies ADD content over time; they don’t remove anything — regardless of how completely useless and irrelevant it may have become. I predict MPG ratings will be applied to vehicles 200 years from now that run on solar nutrinos or gamma rays from neighboring galaxies.
Having said that, there are SO many good alternatives for the EPA to adopt. So here’s a plea to you helpful folks in Washington: Want to add honest value and inform the EV car-buying public about the costs of operating their car — or the relative effect that driving it has on the environment? Come on, admit it — that’s a true lightbulb of an idea! If you want some tips on exactly how this should be done, please call or write anytime.
Here’s a video interview I did earlier today on my book (Renewable Energy – Facts and Fantasties) with Bill Moore and the fine folks at EV World. Interesting set of questions, but I apologize for the horrible video quality (my fault — not theirs).
I just sat through a sad but realistic webinar on the effects of the midterm elections on US energy policy. No surprises. Two key items:
1) Generally, energy policy will not be a priority for the foreseeable future, and thus incentives and regulations that would drive forward the deployment of alternative energy sources will not happen. In 2035, fossil fuels will still represent 78% of our energy consumption, while the world demand for energy will continue to climb. Apparently, no one will see the obvious pitfalls of our current energy policy – if only from a supply (falling) and demand (skyrocketing) perspective. We, the electorate, will make no demands, and our elected leaders will continue to look the other way, pursuing less substantive issues to pave the way to their re-elections. (more…)
Global renewable energy – and the clean energy race for technology, manufacturing, sales and implementation – may be one of the defining global economic issues of our century.
Where does the U.S. stack up? We know that other countries are ahead of us in development and use of renewable energy. Many countries have formalized clear energy plans with the supporting policies to ensure success and growth of the energy needs from green sources. To be competitive in producing, manufacturing, marketing and maintaining such technologies, part of the picture is being innovative and part of the picture is the ability to be competitive (which includes government policies.)
A recent report by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) ranked the United States sixth out of 40 leading industrialized nations in innovation competitiveness, but dead last (40th out of 40) in the category of improvement in national innovation competitiveness over the last decade. America’s economic competitors are surging ahead while U.S. innovation capacity stagnates. The report says that criteria used to rank nations include 1) regulations and government policies that support, not retard, innovation, 2) incentives in place for firms to innovate within their own borders, and 3) an openness to high-skill immigration.
This report came on the heels of the “World Economic Forum 2010-2011 Global Competitiveness Report”, which ranks the U.S. high in innovation but places it down to 4th (from 1st place in 2008 and 2nd in 2009) for global competitiveness. For its rankings, it uses 12 pillars of competitiveness including infrastructure, macroeconomic environment, higher education in energy, goods market efficiency, business sophistication, technological readiness and financial market development.
The acclaimed report, “Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant” from The Breakthrough Institute along with the Information (more…)
I spend at least a few minutes every day taking actions to connect myself with the world’s most visible proponents of renewable energy. Right now, I’m trying to contact Tom Steyer, by all odds, one of the most vigorous and effective supporters of environmentalism and clean energy.
Here’s a good example. While I was emailing my database urging people in California to get out and vote “No on Proposition 23,” (an initiative funded by two Texas oil companies that would have crippled the state’s efforts to protect the ecosystem and build green jobs), Tom was joining Former Secretary of State George Shultz to fund many millions of dollars into the political campaign. Check this out.
Now that’s someone whose hand I want to shake in thanks for a job well done.
Article written in Le Monde Diplomatique, June 2006
There is both bad news and good news for world energy supply. The bad news? Oil is running out. The good news? Oil is running out. And not only oil: sooner or later, every type of fossil energy will run out – including fossil uranium ore which is needed to make atomic fuel rods. The reason why oil became the most used form of energy was simple: because it is liquid, making it easier to use, it became the 20th Century’s “Black Gold”. Yet even John Rockefeller, the first and best-known of the oil magnates, spoke prophetically of “the devil’s tears”.
It was always clear that oil would run out one day. But because people didn’t know when, they put the problem to the back of their minds. The alarmist mood among by state leaders today shows that they were living from day to day, whilst their countries’ dependence on the resources which were becoming depleted grew greater and greater.
Perhaps a number of you recall Mr. Shields’s blog posts regarding ammonia fuel from a few months ago. I believe there is also a reference to ammonia in “Renewable Energy: Facts and Fantasies” during the interview with Matt Simmons.
I would like to thank Craig Shields for inviting me to post as a guest blogger here at 2GreenEnergy in order that I can post any original thinking that I may have regarding ammonia and green energy. The invitation had its roots in that I had referred Mr. Shields to Bill Leighty for more information about ammonia fuel. And I will very likely soon be an intern with the NH3 Fuel Association, which is the new name for the Ammona Fuel Network.
For those who like like the link to my “Model Sustainable Cities” website for my most public work, it can be found at http://modelsustainablecities.weebly.com. (more…)
I note a certain level of confusion surrounding plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. And I can certainly understand some level of bewilderment, as there are numerous variations on the plug-hybrid theme – as well as jargon that, in my opinion, serves to make the matter even worse — BEVs, ZEVs, PHEVs, REEVs, etc. But it’s clear that the enemies of electric transportation, whose motives remain unclear to me, are capitalizing on this moment of confusion to seize the day and turn people away from an important advancement in clean transportation.
In particular, I noted the recent fracas that resulted when GM announced the specifics behind the Chevy Volt’s drivetrain. Conservative columnist George Will loudly accused GM of deceit. “It’s just a hybrid!” he and his fellow cynics screamed last week, somehow overlooking the fact that many Volt drivers will never need to put a drop of gasoline in their cars.
I have to say I was stunned. Isn’t George Will an intellectual? (more…)
![[The Vector] Hermann Scheer – Continued](https://www.2greenenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/votejs.png)
From “CLIMATE ACTION 2009” for the UN Conference in Copenhagen
In this talk, Hermann Scheer debunks the myth of renewables being too expensive and explains why we must keep developing clean tech, describing how each affected industry can make the most of the new opportunities.
When talking about renewable energies, there always follows – like a Pavlovian reflex – the question of costs. The basic assumption still predominates that renewables are not affordable; that they cost too much in comparison with conventional energies. In other words, there is a negative economic myth about renewable energy. This assumption acts as a permanent excuse not to adopt a grand strategy to actively deploy renewable energy. It is argued that the time for renewables has not yet come. Investments in the field of renewable energy are considered an economic burden that no one is willing to shoulder. Those arguments are short-sighted, superficial and highly misleading.
They are short-sighted because they ignore the fundamentally different economic prospects of conventional energies on the one hand and renewables on the other. It is obvious that conventional energies will become more and more expensive over time, whereas the costs for renewables steadily decrease.
The negative myth of high costs that accompany the use of renewables is superficial and misleading because it does not differentiate between micro- and macroeconomic assumptions – that is between expenses for a single investor on the one hand and for the whole national economy on the other. However, this distinction is crucial for the question of whether governments stick to conventional energies or decide to orient their activities towards renewable energies. (more…)
